Return to Start
Condensed and referenced from "Annals of Democracy," The New Yorker Nov. 7, 1988:
On November 4, 1980 Walter Price was seeking his re-election into the West Virginia State Legislature. He went downtown to the central election office to see the new computerized vote-tallying system the county had purchased the year before. On that night he threaded his way into the outer part of the computer cage. In trying to see the operations of the new BT-76 (Ballot Tab) computerized system he ran into vehement objections. Under oath Price testified that, while walking around the windowed computer cage, he saw four actions. The first action occurred four times. Walter Price saw Peggy Miller, the county clerk, drop into a squat in front of the sixteen toggle switches on the master computer. She then put her clipboard down and turned a key, flipped some of the switches, and turned the key again. Then she would go to the printer, which documented the vote totals. She would type some things and then the printer would run. The second action was done by Steve Miller, Peggy's husband. Steve was a Republican, just as Walter Price was. And, Walter stated that he saw Steve draw from the inside pocket of his coat a pack of cards between a quarter of an inch to an inch thick. The cards were the same size as the ballot and control punch cards. He handed these to his wife. The third action was that of Peggy running these cards through the card reader. She then gave them back to her husband.
The power of running punch-cards and manipulating the toggle switches together is enormous. Wayne Nunn, who was brought into the case as a computer expert, had a chance to demonstrate this manipulation. He first ran one ballot through the machine and then manipulated the toggle switches. With his actions he created ten thousand and thirteen votes. He subsequently produced five votes and seven votes. He demonstrated that, with the right knowledge and support, he could produce any number of votes he wanted.
The fourth action that Walter Price says he witnessed was conducted by Carl Clough. Carl was a sales manager for the computerized system's company. Walter states that he witnessed Carl in the computer cage handling a telephone and calculator. Carl supposedly took the telephone and pushed it down into his brief case. This is the action of someone using a modem. If the main computer was networked to another than any results could have been manipulated.
The political race, in this case, was between the Democratic incumbent, congressman John Hutchinson against the Republican contender, Mike Staton. Hutchinson had handily beaten Staton in a special election in the preceding June. And, in this election Hutchinson was predicted to win. The Gazette had predicted it by fourteen to sixteen percentage points. The Democratic National Committee had predicted that Hutchinson would win by five points. In the end Staton won by five points; a margin he had earlier predicted.
The motives of the people in question, if they did rig the election, will never be truly known. Yet, there are some odd relationships between the people in question. Steve Miller, Peggy's husband, was a close friend of the political contender, Mike Staton. He was also the general counsel for the Republican executive committee of the county. Furthermore, Steve Miller was Mike Staton's largest political contributor. The relationships not only could have created the motives for rigging the election, but also could have served as the power to change the outcome.
In the subsequent court cases surrounding Charleston there were too many political hurdles to overcome for a conviction. First, it is in the disinterest of West Virginia to have the computerized election systems scrutinized. There seems to be a great deal of political pressure against convictions of fraud. Such convictions would taint the system and possibly lessen the faith of the general populace in elections. Second, the presiding judge ruled that the source code of the system could be examined yet not divulged to the jury or public. He let Wayne Nunn, a computer expert, examine it for a day. Yet, the judge stated that, "Dr. Nunn will not reveal any information to anyone....No records shall be made of the information obtained." The judge also stated, during the trial, "They (the vote-tallying company) are entitled to protection of the secrets." [Dugger, pg. 68] This ruling greatly hurt the legitimacy of the trial, basing it on circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, the judge was against any testimony of Nunn that concerned "Trojan Horses," memory discrepancies, and the plethora of useless code in the source code.
In the end all the verdicts of the defendants were dismissed. The judge ruled,
"I find that the only evidence that the 1980 election was rigged is purely speculative in nature; it was mere suspicion; and it does not form the basis for the Court... to infer that a conspiracy may be present....The plaintiffs have never proven the existence of a conspiracy. ...Consequently, all we have in this case are a series of unrelated acts that have been proven, most of which have a reasonable and an innocence appearance as easily as they would have a culpable appearance, none of which... are attributed to more than one individual or to more than one entity."
[Dugger, pg. 97-98]
The judges ruling, in this case, can serve as a template of most rulings that deal with computerized vote-tallying fraud. There will rarely be any hard evidence. It is the nature of the invisibility of computers. Furthermore, there will always be political favorability in not seeing possible election fraud prosecuted. It undermines the sense of security people need in elections.